Equating domain parking with “social costs” should be struck from guidebook, organizations say.
Both Oversee.net and Internet Commerce Association have sent strongly worded comments to ICANN regarding a new provision inserted in the latest new top level domain guidebook.
As I wrote about in April, the latest guidebook asks applicants to answer:
What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs (e.g., time or financial resource costs, as well as various types of consumer vulnerabilities)? What other steps will you take to minimize negative consequences/costs imposed upon consumers?
Applicants will have to answer the question “Will you impose any constraints on parked sites, or sites that offer only advertising?”
In its comments, Oversee.net notes that “This evaluation criterion is not only opposite ICANN’s previous descriptions of domain name parking, it is directly opposite of ICANN’s description of its own mission.”
In fact, the company points out, ICANN’s web site states “ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet.”
You can read Oversee.net’s full comments here.
Internet Commerce Association writes:
New AG language that equates parked domains with negative social consequences and costs is unjustified, inappropriate, and at odds with prior ICANN findings and policy, proposed URS evaluation criteria, and WIPO guidance to UDRP examiners.